Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 25

International Journal of Technology and Design Education (2006) 16:117141

DOI 10.1007/s10798-005-3595-x
Springer 2006

Some Implications of the Philosophy of Technology


for Science, Technology and Society (STS) Studies
PIET ANKIEWICZ and ESTELLE DE SWARDT
Department of Mathematics, Science, Technology and Computer Education, Faculty of
Education University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park Kingsway Campus, Auckland Park
2006, Johannesburg, South Africa

MARC DE VRIES
Faculty of Philosophy and Social Sciences Eindhoven University of Technology, 513,
5600 MB, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT: Technology is frequently considered in terms of its impact on entities
outside its essential nature: as the impact of technology on the environment and society,
but also the impact of human values and needs on technology. By taking particular social
implications of technology into account, the ScienceTechnology relationship can be
extended to the eld of Science, Technology and Society (STS) studies. STS studies are
grounded in socio-technological understanding, that is, systematic knowledge of the
mutual relationship between technical objects, the natural environment and social practice. Because technology is a key element of STS, it is expected that the philosophy of
technology will have implications for STS studies. The dynamic nature of technology as
such leaves its own philosophy in a tentative or exible state. However, the implications of
the philosophy of technology, being in a development phase at the moment with changes
in emphasis occuring, for STS studies ought to be determined continuously. The aim of
the article is to identify and discuss possible implications of the the philosophy of technology for STS. In order to deduce these implications, the relevant theoretical framework
underpinning the article will be discussed in broad outlines. Seeing that the philosophy of
technology is such a wide eld a delineation of the eld needs to be done. Mitchams
proposed preliminary framework is taken as point of departure for the article. Technology as knowledge (epistemology/theory of knowledge) and technology as activity (design
methodology) will be discussed as two key aspects of the modern philosophy of technology which could provide implications for STS. A theory of knowledge usually includes
methodology, but seeing that Mitcham classied methodology as one of the modes in
which technology is manifested, it is dealt with separately. The epistemology and methodology of technology will each be discussed from a philosophical, historical and practicebased methodological perspective. Some implications of the philosophy for STS are
identied and discussed.
Keywords: design methodology, epistemology of technology, philosophy of technology,
Science, Technology and Society (STS) studies, technology education

INTRODUCTION: A PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORK FOR TECHNOLOGY

Technology education at school level is currently a developing learning


area worldwide. In contrast to the other learning areas where a wellfounded subject philosophy exists at least for particular components,

118

PIET ANKIEWICZ ET AL.

there is as yet no established subject philosophy for the Technology


learning area in fact, the dynamic nature of technology as such leaves
its own philosophy in a tentative or exible state. Learning programmes
for technology education and its facilitation at chalk level often lack a
scientically founded philosophical framework (Moreland & Jones 2000,
p. 284; Van Niekerk 2003, pp. 89). A philosophical framework is a
conceptual framework that is based on philosophical accounts for
technological issues (such as: what is technological knowledge, what is a
technical artifacts, etcetera). Matters are complicated by the fact that
technology education at school level is globally a developing learning
area where no equivalent academic discipline exists which can serve as a
basis for curriculum development (De Vries 2001, p. 26, 2003b, p. 83).
As already mentioned, the philosophy of technology is in a development phase and changes in emphasis occur. The philosophy of technology was initially dominated by metaphysical analyses of technology
where the designing and making of modern artefacts were regarded as a
black box, and by critical analyses of the consequences of science and
technology for the individual and society. The so-called cultural philosophy, humanities approach or critical analyses resulted in a
philosophy about technology that could be called an external philosophy
(De Vries 2003c, p. 83; Kroes & Meijers 2000, p. xvii).
Halfway through the previous century (by 1950) a movement towards
an internal philosophy of technology occurred (Van Riessen 1949, p. 1,
335, 362) insofar as this black box was unravelled by taking actual
engineering practice as point of departure for the philosophy of technology (Kroes & Meijers 2000, p. xviii; Mitcham 1994, p. 157). This
philosophy of technology has conceptualisation as its main purpose and
is also described by the concepts analytical philosophy and engineering approach (De Vries 2003c, p. 83). This approach can be
characterized as a philosophy of technology.
In the technology learning area where there is as yet no single related
academic discipline that can serve as basis for curriculum development,
one can rely on the philosophy and history of technology, as well as on
design methodology for insights (Broens & De Vries 2003, p.3; De Vries
2001, p. 26, 2003a, p. 2). Although there is not much interaction between
these areas, historians do provide empirical data, design methodologists
do focus on knowledge related to skills, and philosophers do explore
empirical case studies (De Vries 2003a, pp. 45).
A philosophical framework for technology needs to take into account
that the term technology can have both a narrow and a wide meaning
in its present discourse, which roughly coincides with the manner in
which two professional groups, namely engineers and social scientists,
respectively employ the term, and which lead to tension between the two
uses (Mitcham 1994, p. 143). The concept technology has mainly been
reserved by engineers to refer to a direct involvement with material
construction and the manipulation of artefacts (Mitcham 1994, p. 147).

IMPLICATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY

119

In the social sciences the concept technology also includes making


material artefacts, the completed objects, their usages and to a limited
extent also the intellectual and social contexts. Sometimes technology is
dened in such a way that it includes making non-material things like
laws and language (Mitcham 1994, p. 150). More characteristic is the
view of Peter F. Drucker, who maintains that the subject matter of
technology is not so much how things are done or made as how man
does or makes. For Drucker, technology includes not only successful
but also failed making and all human undertakings insofar as they are
(intentionally or unintentionally) oriented toward making and using ...
(Mitcham 1994, p. 151). The tension between the narrower engineering
usage of the word technology and its broader use in the social sciences
cannot be clearly resolved, and should at most be accommodated.
A further implication of a philosophical framework is the numerous,
apparently incompatible denitions of technology continually appearing
in discussions. The disagreements at issue call for a more open
description of technology that delineates its dierent types and their
interrelationships: ... what is needed is not a denitional but characterological framework (Mitcham 1994, pp. 152153).
In this regard Mitcham (1994, pp. 154160) proposed a preliminary
framework based on preliminary and inadequate typologies (those of
Schuurman, Teichmann, Bunge, Carpenter, McGinn and Kline) taking
additional criteria into account. Mitchams framework, which is nowa-days regarded to be a point of reference in the eld of philosophy of
technology, consists of the four modes of the manifestation of technology: technology as object, technology as knowledge, technology as
activity, and technology as volition (Custer 1995, p. 219; De Vries 2003a,
p. 2). In this article we will limit ourselves to a description of the domains
of technological knowledge and technological activities, and in the context of the former domain we will also pay attention to technological
artifacts because knowledge and artifacts are closely related.
Technology as knowledge, the second mode in which technology is
manifested, has most frequently been the subject of analytical investigations in the epistemology or theory of knowledge, according to
Mitcham (1994, p. 192). An epistemological aspect frequently coming to
the fore is the nature of the relationship between the technological
knowledge and knowledge of the natural sciences. By taking particular
social implications of technology into account, the ScienceTechnology
relationship can be extended to the eld of Science, Technology and
Society (STS) studies. STS studies are grounded in socio-technological
understanding, that is, systematic knowledge of the mutual relationship
between technical objects, the natural environment and social practice.
Because technology is a key element of STS, it is expected that the
philosophy of technology (in particular the volition domain; see the
previous paragraph) will have implications for STS studies. The dynamic
nature of technology as such leaves its own philosophy in a tentative or

120

PIET ANKIEWICZ ET AL.

exible state. However, the implications of the philosophy of technology,


which is in a development phase at the moment and certain changes in
emphasis occur, for STS studies ought to be determined continuously.
The purpose of the article is to identify and discuss possible implications of the the philosophy of technology for STS. In order to deduce
these implications, the relevant theoretical framework underpinning the
article will be discussed in broad outlines. Seeing that the philosophy of
technology is such a wide eld a delineation of the eld needs to be done.
Mitchams (1994, pp. 154160) proposed preliminary framework is taken
as point of departure for the article. Technology as knowledge (epistemology/theory of knowledge) and technology as activity (design methodology) will be discussed as two key aspects of the modern philosophy
of technology which could provide implications for STS. A theory of
knowledge usually includes methodology (Van der Walt, Dekker, & Van
der Walt 1985, p. 192), but seeing that Mitcham classied methodology
as one of the modes in which technology is manifested, it is dealt with
separately. The epistemology and methodology of technology will each
be discussed from a philosophical, historical and practice-based methodological perspective. Some implications of the philosophy for STS are
identied and discussed.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY: TECHNOLOGY AS KNOWLEDGE
(EPISTEMOLOGY/THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE)

Classication of technological knowledge


Technology as knowledge, the second mode in which technology is
manifested, has most frequently been the subject of analytical investigations in the epistemology or theory of knowledge, according to Mitcham (1994, p. 192). In its simplest form epistemology (theory of
knowledge) is the systematic study and ordering of knowledge (Van der
Walt et al. 1985, p. 192). Etymologically, the concept techno-logy (as
with bio-logy and socio-logy) indicates that it is concerned with
knowledge. The epistemology of technology has its basis in theoretical
reections and more recently in empirical studies as well (Broens &
De Vries, 2003, pp. 34, 6; Ropohl 1997. p. 67).
Technology as knowledge can be dierentiated according to various
types of knowledge, for example maxims, rules, theories etc. (Mitcham
1994, p. 268). Although there is a distinction between conceptual
knowledge (knowing that) and procedural knowledge (knowing
how) in technology (McCormick 1997, p. 143; Ropohl 1997. p. 69; Ryle
1949, pp. 2832), these two types of knowledge cannot be separated
(McCormick 1997, p. 145).
Conceptual or descriptive knowledge relates to the links between
knowledge items, implying that when learners can identify these links, we
can say that they have conceptual understanding. Thus in the area of

IMPLICATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY

121

gearing we hope that students will see the relationship among the
direction of rotation, change of speed, and torque (McCormick
1997, p. 143). Conceptual knowledge that can be regarded as knowledge
of apparatus or systems (Gott 1988; in McCormick 1997, p. 148) is
clearly knowledge of technology as artefacts (Mitcham). Conceptual
knowledge relevant to technology therefore includes ... that drawn from
other subjects, such as science, and that unique to technology
(McCormick 1997, p. 153).
Procedural knowledge is frequently referred to as tacit, personal or
implicit knowledge. Design, modelling, problem solving, systems approaches, project planning, quality assurance and optimisation are all
candidates for technological procedural knowledge ... (McCormick
1997, p. 144). In contrast with conceptual knowledge, procedural
knowledge cannot be taught: Technical know-how can be gained by
thorough practice only (Ropohl 1997, p. 69).
A theory of knowledge usually includes methodology (Van der Walt
et al. 1985, p. 192), but seeing that Mitcham classied methodology as
one of the modes in which technology is manifested, it is dealt with
separately. Technology as activity (methodology), in particular, provides
insights in the procedural knowledge in technology.
In the literature one nds examples of considerations of the epistemology of technology from a philosophical (Ropohl 1997, pp. 6770),
historical (Vincenti 1990, pp. 207225) and practice-based designmethodological perspective (Bayazit 1993; Muller & Pasman 1996; in
Broens & De Vries 2003, p. 6).
Most of what has been published about the nature and classication
of technological knowledge draws from historical studies (Broens & De
Vries 2003, p. 5). An excellent example of the use of case studies in the
context of an epistemological analysis is the historian, Vincenti (1990,
pp. 207225). He developed a more general account of engineering design knowledge consisting of six categories (Table I) that interact intimately based on ve cases in aeronautics (De Vries 2003a, p. 3; Meijers
2000, p. 95). Knowledge, like the structure of design that determines it, is
hierarchical within the categories. The implications of the social context
for the various kinds of knowledge are closely linked to the intersectional
structure of knowledge categories and design hierarchy. Social impact
tends to be largest for fundamental concepts, criteria and specications
at the upper levels of the hierarchy (Vincenti 1990, p. 223).
Practitioners classications of technological knowledge have been
proposed based on reections on their design practice. Such reections
have been developed and published on the nature of the knowledge that
is used in design processes, in the eld of design methodology (De Vries
2003a, p. 3; Bayazit 1993; Muller & Pasman 1996, in Broens & De Vries
2003, p. 6). These reections are presented in Table II.
Simon (1969, in Dorst 1997, p. 12, 50) who linked classic design
methodology with problem solving theories from computer science and

Knowledge of the technical criteria appropriate to


the device and its use
Assignment of the values or limits to those criteria
Translation of the qualitative goals of a device
into concrete technical terms
Mathematical methods and theories (are
descriptive) (simple formulas for direct calculation or more complex calculative schemes)

Criteria and specications

Practical considerations
(derived from experience
in practice mostly
learned on the job)

Quantitative data

Experience in design (including tragic experience)


Design rules of thumb

Intellectual concepts (provide the language for


conceiving and analysing artefacts)
Descriptive knowledge (knowledge of how things
are)
Prescriptive knowledge (knowledge of how things
should be to attain a desired end)

Operational principles (are prescriptive)


Normal congurations (are prescriptive)

Fundamental design
concepts

Theoretical tools (precise


and codiable)

Subcategories

Categories

Physical constants, properties of substances and


of physical processes
Process specications issued by manufacturers
Safety of players prescribed by government
agency

Scientic end of spectrum pure mathematical


tools having no physical content in themselves
Mathematically structured knowledge that is
essentially physical
Theories based on scientic principles
Phenomenological theories
Quantitative assumptions introduced for calculative expedience
Basic ideas from science

How the device works


The general shape and arrangement to best embody the operational principle

Description

TABLE I
Vincentis categories of engineering design knowledge

122
PIET ANKIEWICZ ET AL.

Design instrumentalities

Ways of thinking (thinking itself is a mental


process; knowing how to do it is an aspect of the
tacit knowledge)
Judgmental skills (include an ability to way
technical considerations in relation to the demands and constraints of a social context, is
mostly tacit and can be learned only through
practical experience)

Structured procedures

Division of an overall system into subsystems


Optimisation (satiscing is not the very best
solution but one that was satisfactory)
Thinking in terms of analogies
Non-verbal thinking
Visual thinking

IMPLICATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY

123

Socio-technical Understanding

Functional rules
Technical know-how

Collaborative design
knowledge

Procedural knowledge

Declarative knowledge;
normative knowledge

Normative knowledge
Declarative knowledge

Structural rules

Technological laws
Structural rules

Bayazit (Design methodology)


(Broens & De Vries 2003, p. 6)

Ropohl (Philosophy)
(Broens & De Vries 2003, p. 6)

Practical considerations
Design instrumentalities

Fundamental design concepts


Criteria and specications
Theoretical tools
Quantitative data

Vincenti (History) (Broens &


De Vries 2003, p. 6)

The evaluation of designs


Computational methods
Formal logic of design
Search for alternatives
Theory of structure and design
organisation
Representation of design problems

Computational methods

Simon (Design methodology


rational problem solving)
(Dorst 1997, p. 50)

TABLE II
A comparison of dierent classications of technological knowledge according to Rophol, Bayazit, Vincenti and Simon

124
PIET ANKIEWICZ ET AL.

IMPLICATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY

125

psychology, summarised the essential design knowledge base for the


training of designers (Table III).
From a philosophical perspective De Vries compared existing classications with their origins from various viewpoints and composed his
own classication that can be linked to particular aspects of existing
typologies. De Vriess four categories are only applicable to conceptual
knowledge (knowing that) expressed in propositions and not to procedural knowledge (knowing how) that, unlike conceptual knowledge,
can not be expressed completely in propositions. It is impossible, for
example, to explain comprehensively in propositions to a person how to
ride a bicycle in propositions.
In Table IV a comparison of dierent classications of technological
knowledge according to Vincenti and De Vries are addressed.
De Vriess simpler representation of the epistemology of technology,
which is not necessarily less complex than Vincentis, will be taken as
epistemological point of departure for this article. De Vriess starting
point is the dual nature of technological artefacts: ... they are designed
physical structures which realise intentionality-bearing functions
(Kroes & Meijers 2000, p. xxv). Technological artefacts cannot fully be
described within physical conceptualisation, because it leaves no room
for functional characteristics. Furthermore, they can not be comprehensively described within intentional conceptualisation, because their
function needs to be realized within an appropriate physical structure.
Based on the LOCOS (LOCal Oxidation of Silicon) and Optical Communication Systems case studies (De Vries 2002b, p. 12) in the Philips
Natuurkundig Laboratorium (Eindhoven, Nederland) distinguishes four
types of conceptual knowledge (knowing-that) relevant to the development of technological artefacts. These are knowledge of the physical
TABLE III
The essential design knowledge base for the education of designers (Dorst 1997, p. 50)
Categories

Sub-categories

The evaluation of designs


Computational methods

Utility theory, statistical decision theory


Algorithms for choosing optimal alternatives
(linear programming, control theory,
dynamic programme)
Algorithms and heuristics for choosing
satisfactory alternatives
Imperative and declarative logic
Heuristic search (factorisation and
means- ends-analysis)
Allocation of resources for search
Hierarchic systems

Formal logic of design


Search for alternatives

Theory of structure and


design organisation
Representation of
design problems

Physical nature knowledge


Functional nature knowledge

Normal congurations (are prescriptive)


Knowledge of the technical criteria appropriate to
the device and its use
Assignment of the values or limits to those criteria
Translation of the qualitative goals of a device
into concrete technical terms
Mathematical methods and theories (are
descriptive) (Simple formulas for direct calculation or more complex calculative schemes)
Intellectual concepts (Provide the language for
conceiving and analysing thinking artefacts)
Descriptive knowledge (knowledge of how things
are)
Prescriptive knowledge (knowledge of how things
should be to attain a desired end)
Experience in design (including tragic experience)

Practical considerations
(derived from experience
in practice mostly
learned on the job)

Quantitative data

Theoretical tools (precise


and codiable)

Design rules of thumb

Process knowledge

Operational principle (are prescriptive)

Fundamental design
concepts

Process knowledge
Knowledge of the relationship between physical
and functional knowledge

Knowledge of the relationship between physical


and functional knowledge
Functional nature knowledge

Physical nature knowledge

Process knowledge

Knowledge of the relationship between physical


and functional knowledge
Process knowledge (Indirect)

Categories

Sub-categories

Categories

Criteria and specications


(prescriptive)

De Vries categories (Broens & De Vries 2003


pp. 56; De Vries 2002a, p. 2, 2003a, pp. 1314,
2003b, p. 84)

Vincentis categories (1990, pp. 207225)

TABLE IV
A comparison of dierent classications of technological knowledge according to Vincenti and De vries

126
PIET ANKIEWICZ ET AL.

Design instrumentalities

Structured procedures
Ways of thinking (thinking itself is a mental
process; knowing how to do it is an aspect of the
tacit knowledge)
Judgemental skills (include an ability to way
technical considerations in relation to the demands and constraints of a social context, is
mostly tacit and can be learned only through
practical experience)

Process knowledge

IMPLICATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY

127

128

PIET ANKIEWICZ ET AL.

nature of technological artefacts; knowledge of their functional nature;


knowledge of the relationship between their physical and functional
nature; and process knowledge (Broens & De Vries 2003, pp. 56; De
Vries 2003a, pp. 1314, 2003b, p. 2, 2003c, p. 84). The following provides
a brief clarication of the four types of conceptual knowledge:
Knowledge of a physical nature: X knows that an artefact has physical characteristics. For example X knows that a cork screw consists
of a helix with a sharp point.
Knowledge of a functional nature: X knows what the artefact, which
may not as yet exist, is capable of doing. For example X knows that
a cork can be removed from a bottle neck by gripping the cork and
pulling it out (and that a cork screw is a device for doing this).
Knowledge of the relationship between physical and functional nature: X knows that a particular physical characteristic or combination
of characteristics of an artefact enables it to perform an action. For
example X knows that the sharp helix of a corkscrew enables it to
get a grip on the cork (for it to be removed from the bottle neck).
Process knowledge: X knows that the cork can be removed from the
neck of the bottle by rst inserting the helix into the cork and then
to pull at the handle of the corkscrew.
This categorisation of De Vries brings us to one of the essential
characteristics of conceptual knowledge of technology: its normative
nature.
The normative nature of technological knowledge
Knowledge about the relationship between the physical and the functional is similar to knowledge in the natural sciences. However, the
remaining three types of knowledge (knowledge of the physical and
functional nature, and process knowledge) dier from natural science
knowledge in the sense that they have a normative nature which natural
science knowledge does not have (Broens & De Vries 2003, p. 5; De Vries
2003c, pp. 8485). When we have knowledge of a computer, it frequently
includes normative judgements: it functions well or it does not function
well. When technologists design artefacts their work is guided by very
concrete objectives requiring them to rst formulate design criteria and
specications. Natural scientists, however, are not guided by rigid preconceived objectives (Vincenti 1990, p. 213).
The relationship between natural science and technology
An epistemological aspect frequently coming to the fore is the nature of
the relationship between the knowledge of the natural sciences and
technological knowledge. In general, those who adhere to the positivist
tradition in the philosophy of natural science would argue that technology is actually applied science (the accepted viewpoint of engineers
and scientists and Mario Bunge, as their strongest philosophical

IMPLICATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY

129

representative). They would endeavour to build an epistemology of


technology underpinned by the encompassing model based on scientic
laws for its explanatory power (Mitcham 1994, p. 197).
In contrast to Bunges view of technology as applied science, one also
nds the view according to which there is no deducible link between one
or more elements of technological knowledge and natural science, or that
they are totally incompatible (Custer 1995, pp. 220223; Mitcham 1994,
p. 199).
The complex relationship between natural science and technology is
frequently claried by making a distinction based on epistemological
grounds (Custer 1995, p. 220), like the qualication of De Vries
according to which specic technological knowledge is normative, while
natural science knowledge is not. In other cases technology and natural
science are compared in terms of aspects like aims, research objects,
methodology, characteristics of results and quality criteria (Custer 1995,
pp. 221223; Mitcham 1994, p. 192; Ropohl 1997, pp. 6667). Examples
would be that technological knowledge focuses on artefacts, while natural science knowledge is concerned with natural objects; and that natural science aims at cognition itself, while technology only focuses on
cognition inasmuch as it is useful to optimise the function and structure
of technological artefacts.
Insight into the complex relationship between natural science and
technology can be better understood by considering this in actual
practice (De Vries 2001, pp. 1516). Both natural science and technology play an important role in industrial research laboratories, and
therefore these laboratories serve as useful learning opportunities
regarding this complex relationship (De Vries 2001, pp. 1516). The
sta at such laboratories serve a dual role. On the one hand, they need
to get a better understanding of natural phenomena inuencing the
functioning of existing products or applied during the development of
new products. On the other hand, they have to take the rst step in
using this knowledge for the development of new products (De Vries
2001, p. 16). Based on the documented history of a number of
industrial research laboratories, in particular the Philips Natuurkundig
Laboratorium, De Vries proposed similarities between various research
laboratories concerning the interactive patterns between natural science
and technology. These are:
 Natural science as enabler for the realisation of technological development;
 Natural science serving an exploratory function (forerunner) for
technological development;
 Natural science as source of knowledge for technological development (De Vries 2001, p. 17).

130

PIET ANKIEWICZ ET AL.

Natural science as enabler for the realisation of technological development


In this instance the research laboratory develops new knowledge playing
a signicant role in the product diversication of the business. Seeing
that the companys directorate decides on product diversication and the
laboratory enables the business to realize the diversication, technology
and natural science are deeply intertwined in this case (De Vries 2001,
pp. 1920).
Natural science serving an exploratory function (forerunner)
for technological development
After the Second World War a strong condence in the role of natural
science in technological development became evident (De Vries 2001, p.
20; Smit & Van Oost 1999, p. 156). In many research laboratories the
interest in basic research increased, based on the popular view that
technology is actually applied science. The result was that research
laboratories undertaking basic research became forerunners of technological development (De Vries 2001, p. 21). The relationship between
natural science and technology was uncomfortable because the product
divisions felt that they had no say in the research programmes of the
laboratories, and that most of the research outputs had no commercial
value. The research laboratories, on the other hand, were frustrated
because many of their research outputs were not utilized by the product
divisions (De Vries 2001, pp. 2223).
Natural science as source of knowledge for technological development
During the late 1960s and early 1970s a number of economic and social
changes as well as the decline in condence in basic research gave rise to
a new relationship between natural science and technology. Research
laboratories had to reconsider their role in business, limit research output with uncertain outcomes, and ensure that the product divisions
would use their research output. Economic restrictions and the increased
emphasis on the inuence of technology on the environment, on the
other hand, also required that the interests of the product divisions had
to continually be considered by the research laboratories when determining research practices. The role of the research laboratories became
more modest in serving as source of knowledge for technological
development than before (De Vries 2001, p. 23).
The history of industrial research laboratories thus indicates that the
role of natural science as enabler and source of knowledge for technological development leads to a more fruitful cooperation than when
natural science serves as forerunner to technology (De Vries 2001, p. 25).
The interaction between natural science and technology as it manifests in
practice also requires epistemological consideration when integrating
knowledge during technological development.

IMPLICATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY

131

Integration of knowledge during technological development


from a philosophical perspective
The integration of knowledge plays an important role in technology
because merging various types of knowledge is an essential prerequisite for designing artefacts. Based on the LOCOS and Optical
Communication Systems case studies De Vries (2003b, p. 12)
identied the following ways in which knowledge is integrated in
technology:
 Knowledge of the physical properties is combined with knowledge
of the functional requirements;
 Knowledge from various disciplines (for example physics, chemistry, electrical engineering) is merged;
 Knowledge pertaining to various levels of systems is linked (material, devices or sub-systems and systems).
From these case studies it became clear that when knowledge of the
physical nature (that is, descriptive knowledge) was integrated with
knowledge of the functional nature (that is, prescriptive knowledge),
then the resultant knowledge was the type that could link the physical
and functional nature of the artefact with each other. The resulting
knowledge is evaluative because it includes a value judgement of the
suitability of the physical nature of the artefact in terms of the function it
should perform (De Vries 2003b, p. 14). When the nature of resulting
integrated knowledge is compared to the nature of the knowledge that
was integrated, it becomes evident that the integration of dierent
knowledge types can lead to knowledge of another type (that was not
involved during the integration) (De Vries 2003b, p. 14).
If knowledge from various disciplines is integrated, there are two
possibilities:
 Knowledge from the rst discipline can be combined with knowledge from the second discipline leading to new knowledge pertaining to a third discipline.
 Knowledge from a rst and a second discipline can be combined to
create new knowledge that belongs to either the rst or to the second discipline. This is usually referred to as the transfer of knowledge (De Vries 2003b, p. 16).
According to Nissani (in De Vries 2003b, p. 17) the term interdisciplinary knowledge is used when one is familiar with the components
of the two or more disciplines involved. The literature focuses predominantly on the social aspects of interdisciplinary knowledge because it
tends to describe the way in which persons from the various disciplines
interact and cooperate instead of the integration of knowledge (De Vries
2003b, p. 17) and the resultant knowledge (our addition). Focusing more
on the integration of knowledge than on the cooperating participants

132

PIET ANKIEWICZ ET AL.

would probably have led to the idea of the integration of disciplines


according to a new discipline with entirely new concepts emerging as a
result of a synthesis of insights from two or more disciplines (De Vries
2003b, p. 19). The incompatibility of knowledge types may lead to
problems with knowledge integration, but these are not insurmountable.
The various knowledge types and disciplines from which knowledge is
integrated, can serve as a determining factor for the success or failure of
a product (De Vries 2003b, p. 23).

PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY: TECHNOLOGY AS ACTIVITY


(METHODOLOGY)

The third mode in which technology is manifested is technology as


activity: Technology includes more than material objects such as tools
and machines and mental knowledge or cognition of the kind found in
engineering sciences ... despite the quickness with which people think of
physical objects ... when technology is mentioned ... activity is arguably
its primary manifestation. Technology as activity is that pivotal event in
which knowledge and volition unite to bring artefacts into existence or to
use them; it is likewise the occasion for artefacts themselves to inuence
the mind and will (Mitcham 1994, p. 209).
Technology as activity is recognizable in terms of various activities,
for example, making, design, maintaining and use (Mitcham 1994, pp.
210, 268). Mitcham (1994, pp. 216225) makes a meaningful distinction
between invention and design. In contrast with scientic discovery,
technological inventions refer to the creation of something new, rather
than to nding an existing thing that was hidden. Innovation as a form
of invention is The slowed-down or spread-out invention through
innumerable minor modications that maintain historical continuity ...
(Mitcham 1994, p. 217).
Invention, as opposed to design, is apparently an action preceded by
non-rational, unconscious, intuitive and even accidental ways of doing.
Invention can thus be viewed as accidental design. Modern engineering,
as an attempt to settle and systematize the inventive process, has been
called the invention of invention: The greatest invention of the nineteenth century was the invention of the method of invention. ...
(Mitcham 1994, p. 217). Design can be described as ...the attempt to
solve in thought, using available knowledge, problems of fabrication that
will save work (as materials or energy) in either the artefact to be produced, the process of production, or both ... Engineering design is thus
an eort (at rst sight of a mental sort) to save eort (of a physical sort)
(Mitcham 1994, pp. 220221).
Although a distinction is made in technology between design and
problem-solving (Johnsey 1995, pp. 199200; McCormick 1997, pp. 150
153), there is a connection between these concepts: The design process is

IMPLICATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY

133

seen as the manifestation of the problem-solving process (McCormick,


Murphy, & Hennessy 1994, p. 5). According to De Vries (in ITEA 1997,
chapter 3:7) design is a particular type of problem-solving in technology.
Various kinds of complex thinking processes (creative and critical
thinking, decision-making and problem-solving) underpin and form part
of technological activities (Ankiewicz & De Swardt 2002, p. 77; De
Swardt 1998, p. 4; Jakovljevic 2002, pp. 7980; Johnson 1997, p. 163;
Reddy, Ankiewicz, De Swardt, & Gross 2003, p. 30; Sharpe 1996, p. 29)
therefore, technology can be regarded both as minds-on (complex
thinking) and as hands-on (practical activities) (McCormick &
Davidson 1996, p. 232).
Design processes are the object studied in the discipline of design
methodology (De Vries 2001, p. 26). The point of departure for design
methodology is the experiences of active designers, and reection on
these experiences leads to general insights in design processes and
methods (Broens & De Vries 2003, p. 3). The overall aim of design
methodology is to improve the eectiveness and eciency of design
activities, and to develop design as a discipline through critical consideration of design (Dorst 1997, p. 8).
Two radically dierent paradigms form the basis of the discipline of
design methodology (Dorst 1997, pp. 1112):
 The rational problem-solving paradigm (based on the work of
Simon, 1969 in Dorst, 1997 p.12) where objective observation
and logical analysis lead to general, formal design models and pave
the way for objective interpretation the structured approach generally associated with engineers.
 The reective practice paradigm (as proposed by Schon, 1983 in
Dorst, 1997 p.12) moves the focus from general design models to
the uniqueness of every design problem, where reective communication with the situation takes place and there is room for subjective interpretation a less structured approach usually associated
with architects (Dorst 1997, p. 204). Dorst (1997, p. 133) distinguished three phases during the design activity: the conceptual
phase, the information phase and the embodiment phase. All three
phases can easily be related to the rational problem-solving paradigm, while the conceptual phase is the only one relevant to the
reective paradigm. The conceptual phase of the design process is a
more subjective design activity and is therefore more adequately
described by the reective practice paradigm. During the information phase of a design project most of the design activities involve
objective interpretation and it is therefore better described by the
rational problem-solving paradigm (Dorst 1997, p. 162).
Thinking about technology according to its impact on entities
stretching outside its essential nature is frequently found: as the impact
of technology on the environment and society, but also the impact of

134

PIET ANKIEWICZ ET AL.

human values and needs on technology (Custer 1995, p. 241). By taking


particular social implications of technology into account, the ScienceTechnology relationship, discussed earlier, can be extended to the eld of
Science, Technology and Society (STS) studies.

THE FIELD OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY (STS) STUDIES

STS studies are grounded in socio-technological understanding, that is,


systematic knowledge of the mutual relationship between technical
objects, the natural environment and social practice (Ropohl 1997, p. 70).
The primary momentum for STS studies has been the increasing awareness of environmental pollution and consumer movements during the
1960s, and additional impetus was provided by concerns about nuclear
weapons, the social impact of sudden technological change (like automation), the energy crisis, developments in biomedical engineering, and
similar issues. STS studies emanated from a few prominent universities,
especially in the USA, and were promoted as an essential component of
the liberal arts in a sophisticated technological society and expanded as a
new kind of literacy in higher education institutions as well as secondary
and primary schools (De Vries 2001, p. 15; Mitcham 1994, p. 272).
On the one hand it is true that new technology inuences society, but
on the other hand technology itself is not an unchanging given with xed
characteristics. Technology is changing continually, even during usage
after the initial implementation. Moreover, the direction of technological
development is particularly inuenced by societal developments as new
needs develop. It is therefore problematic to distinguish between cause
and eect in the process of embedding technology into society. Societal
development and technological development are in continuous interaction with each other (Smit & Van Oost 1999, p. 47). The inuence is
mutual, and therefore it is better described as co-evolution a joint
development of technology and society than as referring to the eects
of technology on society (Smit & Van Oost 1999, p. 27).
Based on a study of embedding the telephone and Minitel (France),
Smit and Van Oost (1999, p. 47) point out that the social inuence
resulting from the complexity of the socio-technical interaction does not
always follow one direction and that its normative assessment can vary
among various societal groups.
A technology assessment study (TA), as one of the approaches in STS
studies (Ropohl 1997, pp. 7071), is an instrument for exploring the
forecast of possible eects of new technological development for societal
groups and for society as a whole in a systematic manner (Smit & Van
Oost 1999, p. 135). The exploration of new technological development
and forecasting the consequences of this technological development on
society and environment form two important activities of TA.

IMPLICATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY

135

The aim of TA is feedback to and sending technological development


in a desired direction, and if this is not possible or if a development
renders disadvantages besides specic advantages, to make a societal
forecast of the detrimental eects and suggesting ways in which these
eects can be accommodated (Smit & Van Oost 1999, p. 197). These
eects are in the rst instance not the direct or intended eects, but the
indirect or higher-order eects that are frequently not intended (Smit &
Van Oost 1999, p. 19).
A qualitative and interactive approach is particularly productive for
TA studies, as they frequently cover a wide area and deal with future
developments. When an intensive interaction between designers or producers and other participants is central, it is referred to as an interactive
technology assessment (ITA) approach which is a specic form of constructive technology assessment (CTA) (Smit & Van Oost 1999, p. 178).
The aim of CTA is to take explicitly into account the societal impact
when developing technology and design process, but in particular how
these eects are seen by those aected by them (Smit & Van Oost 1999,
p. 177).
Smit and Van Oost (1999, pp. 9092) distinguish three fundamentally
dierent views of the relationship between technology and its societal
eect:
 Technological determinism where technology irrevocably leads to a
particular consequence (compare Mitchams technological determinism);
 Social voluntarism if societal choices simply cause the results (compare Mitchams theory of human freedom);
 Social constructivism when the eects are the result of technological
and societal change that is closely interwoven. Having provided the
theoretical framework that underpins the article, the implications of
the philosophy of technology for Science, Technology and Society
(STS) studies will now be discussed.

DISCUSSION

The implications of the philosophy of technology for Science, Technology and Society (STS) studies will now be discussed by viewing it from
an epistemological, historical and methodological perspective.
Implications for STS from an epistemological perspective
From Dorsts account of the process of designing technological artefacts,
deductions can be made from the way the structural description of the
artefact as physical object and the functional description of the object as
intentionally formed artefact are combined during the design process. Pitt (in Kroes & Meijers 2000, pp. xxxxxxi) shows that some

136

PIET ANKIEWICZ ET AL.

epistemological models of technology originating from a historical perspective (e.g. Vincenti and Bucciarelli) are unable to explain or understand failure in design and seems to imply that in case of failed projects
the participants are simply not very good engineers. In contrast to the
myth of the engineer as idealised rational problem solver, Pitt proposes
rather taking the decision making process as point of departure in the
analysis of technology. Technology is humanity at work and we have to
look at who made what decision and why? From a design methodological perspective Dorst (1997, p. 206) states that there are design
activities that involve subjective interpretation when the designer
impresses meaning and value upon something in the design task or design solution (the framing action). This kind of design activity can best
be described by the paradigm of reective practice. The meaning and
value the designer impresses upon something relate to the normative
character or prescriptive knowledge of De Vries. It seems therefore that,
except for the knowledge of the relationship between the physical and
functional nature, the physical, functional and process nature knowledge
can be related to the paradigm of reective practice.
According to Dorst (1997, p. 206) there are also design activities in
which the interpretation of the design task or solution is based upon an
impression made by something outside the designer, where the designer
behaves according to the assumptions of the rational problem solving
paradigm (objective interpretation). Thus De Vriess knowledge of the
relationship between the physical and functional nature (that is akin to
knowledge in natural sciences) could be related to the rational problemsolving paradigm.
The implication of the two paradigms and Dorsts dual model for
epistemology (De Vriess physical, functional, relational and process
knowledge) is that specic types of knowledge can be linked to specic
phases of the design process. This implies that certain types of knowledge
belonging to a specic phase can be more applicable or relevant within a
specic paradigm.
In the ITA of Smit and Van Oost (1999, pp. 198, 210218) there must
be a global exploration especially in the second step of TA, as well as a
choice of themes that will be analysed in depth while the players (that are
indicated on the social map) participate in a roundtable discussion. One
can assume that the dierent players have dierent disciplines as background. The implication is that an integration of knowledge is required:
Not only of knowledge that leads to transfer of knowledge, but also of
knowledge that belongs to a discipline, for which there are not yet
players. To determine the background disciplines of the players who are
involved a technological map can be used in the rst step of TA (Smit &
Van Oost 1999, pp. 199210), namely the exploration of technological
development. According to Kroes and Meijers (2000, p. xxvi) when
developing an account of the intentional aspects of technical functions, it
will be necessary to explore the kind of social constraints involved in the

IMPLICATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY

137

design and use of technological artefacts. De Vriess functional nature


knowledge relates to the social constraints and could therefore form an
important point of departure when doing a technology assessment (TA).
The inclusion of the normative components of technological knowledge when teaching technology does relate to Smit and Van Oosts third
step of TA (1999, pp. 218219), namely the normative judgement of the
eects of new technology. In the rst place, the normative nature of
technological knowledge is emphasised during the phases of the design
process in the sense that the designer will know what is necessary because
it will work well. In this case the designer applies insights from design
methodology as discipline. Secondly, the technological and social eects
of new technology are judged from a social constructivist perspective, as
part of Technology Assessment (TA). In this case TA as discipline forms
the point of departure.
Implications for STS from a historical perspective
Scientists can be seen as part of the developers of technology, because
the developers rely on specic aspects of scientic knowledge. Because
this is the case, science (scientists) must be involved as a player in ITA to
predetermine or to anticipate the reciprocal eects of technological and
social development. A good example of Awareness Technology Assessment (ATA) is Einstein who warned the American president, Roosevelt,
in a two page letter about the technological and social eects when the
potential of atomic ssion became a reality (Powers, 1993, p. 63). A
further implication is that when science dominates the relationship
(forerunner) it can degenerate into technological determinism, while
science as knowledge resource and enabler can advance social constructivism as the basis of CTA/ITA.
From a socialhistorical perspective, Staudenmaier (in Vincenti 1990,
p. 222) states that design operates within the contingent world of funding
priorities, time pressures, conicting biases, personal and institutional
politics, and the like, and designers must know how to respond and take
such inuences into account. This points directly toward TA and its
implications. More specically ITA should identify and include designers
as an important actor in order to compile a social map as a useful
method for anticipating the eects of technology (Smit & Van Oost 1999,
p. 213).
Implications for STS from a design methodological perspective
In his denition of industrial design Maldonado (Dorst 1997, p. 34)
mentioned that the demands of dierent stakeholders (e.g. the producer,
the user) must be integrated into the designed product. He also stated
that industrial design problems require integration in another sense,
when designing a product, technical, ergonomical, aesthetical and
business considerations must be taken into account. It has been

138

PIET ANKIEWICZ ET AL.

mentioned that these aspects form an important part of the contexts


within the rational problem-solving paradigm (Dorst 1997, p. 58). There
is a correspondence between these stakeholders and the players referred
to in the sociology of technological development (Smit & Van Oost 1999,
p. 96). It is important rst to identify these players in order to compile a
social card as an important method for anticipating the eects of
technology (Smit & Van Oost, 1999, p. 213).
From a design methodological perspective Dorst (1997, p. 60)
distinguished three phases during the design activity, namely the conceptual, information and embodiment phase. His description method for
the content side of integrative design activities within the rational
problem solving paradigm contained two categories, namely topics and
contexts. The process side of the design activities was described by two
categories of a general nature, namely acts and goals. With regard to
contexts in the rational problem solving paradigm Dorst (1997, p. 119)
found that the contexts were spread equally between stakeholders and
aspects, with the stakeholder contexts concentrated at the beginning of
the design process (information and conceptual phases), while the
embodiment phase almost exclusively contained aspect. The early phases
of a design project are dedicated to processing the statements of the
stakeholders and the later phases are dedicated to detailing a core
solution that can be viewed from dierent aspects.
The rational problem-solving paradigm and the reective paradigm
should respectively contextualise and frame the design situation and
technology producer should amongst others include the users and the
regulators. Seeing that the stakeholder contexts are implied in the
information and conceptual phases, the implication is that Constructive
Technology Assessment (CTA) (Smit & Van Oost 1999, p. 177) and
more specically Interactive Technology Assessment (ITA) (Smit & Van
Oost 1999, p. 178) must be done in the two phases at the beginning of the
design project. The information phase is best described by the rational
problem-solving paradigm and the conceptual phase is best described by
the reective paradigm (Dorst 1997, p. 162). The implication is therefore
that Dorsts dual-mode model is relevant for TA.
Developers, as important stakeholder, have a direct interest in the
development of technology. At the same time they often form part of an
organisation (university, industry, etc) with a specic policy in which
they have to work. This situation gives the designer specic responsibilities, namely:
 Organisational responsibility;
 Occupational responsibility;
 Own interest;
 Social responsibility (Smit & Van Oost 1999, pp. 142152).
This will mean that a Technology Assessment (TA) should also
highlight the responsibility on the individual area of the designer and on

IMPLICATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY

139

the institutional or organisational area. This responsibility in turn is


important for the normative judging of the eects of technology (as third
step of the model of Smit & Van Oost 1999).
A further implication for TA will be that the point of departure
is technology-directed exploration and not only problem directed
exploration (Smit & Van Oost 1999, p. 199). The four step model for TA
(Smit & Van Oost 1999, p. 198) incorporates objective techniques and
methods for technology directed exploration (Smit & Van Oost 1999, pp.
201209), and methods for incorporation of technological eects and
normative judging of the eects of technology (Smit & Van Oost, 1999,
pp. 214215). If it is objective, the question is whether the rational
problem solving paradigm is more relevant for TA.
CONCLUSION

From the discussion it became evident that the philosophical framework


of Mitcham provides a useful tool for describing the philosophy of
technology. This article focused on two of the four modes in which
technology manifests itself and it was indicated that they provide a point
of departure for developing a philosophy of technology. The philosophical, historical and methodological perspectives on these aspects
oer a meaningful contribution in developing each mode as a separate
aspect of the philosophical framework. A few implications of the epistemology and methodology as two key aspects of the philosophy of
technology for STS could be inferred. The two remaining modes, namely
ontology (technology as object) and volition, should receive further
attention in order to provide a fuller description of the philosophy of
technology. The implications of these two aspects of the philosophy of
technology for STS should be investigated further.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Prof. Piet Ankiewicz holds an M.Sc. (Physics) and a D.Ed. both from
Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education. He is professor of Technology education at the University of Johannesburg, with
special interest in the philosophical and theoretical foundation of
Technology education, instructional methodology, learning programmes
and learners attitudes towards technology. He teaches and researches in
these areas, and is also appointed Head of the RAU Centre for
Technology education (RAUTEC).
Prof. Estelle de Swardt holds an M.Ed. (Technology education) and a
D.Ed. both from the University of Johannesburg. She is an associate
professor of Technology education at the Rand Afrikaans University and
is presently involved in the training of teachers for Technology education
with a special focus on critical and creative thinking development.

140

PIET ANKIEWICZ ET AL.

Prof. Marc de Vries holds an M.Sc. in Physics from the Free University of Technology. At present he is assistant professor of Philosophy
and methodology of technology in the faculty of Technology Management at the Eindhoven University of Technology.

REFERENCES
Ankiewicz, P. J. & De Swardt, A. E.: 2002, Aspects to be Taken into Account when Compiling a
Learning Programme to Support Eective Facilitation of Technology Education, National
Conference for Technology Teachers, Port Natal School, Durban, Conference Proceedings,
7681, 30 September 1 October 2002.
Broens, C. J. A. M. & De Vries, M. J.: 2003, Classifying Technological Knowledge for
Presentation to Mechanical Engineering Designers, Design Studies 24(5), Sep., 457471.
Custer, R. L.: 1995, Examining the Dimensions of Technology, International Journal of
Technology and Design Education 5(3), 219244.
De Swardt, A. E.: 1998, Technology Education and the Development of Thinking skills: A Case
Study, Rand Afrikaans University (M.Ed. mini-dissertation), Johannesburg.
De Vries, M. J.: 2001, The History of Industrial Research Laboratories as a Resource for
Teaching about ScienceTechnology Relationships, Research in Science Education 31, 1528.
De Vries, M. J.: 2002a, Integration of knowledge in technological developments. Philosophical
reections on an empirical case study, Paper presented at the conference: Technological
Knowledge: Philosophical Reections, Boxmeer, Netherlands.
De Vries, M. J.: 2002b, 80 years of Research at the Philips Natuurkundig Laboratorium
(19141994), Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
De Vries, M. J.: 2003a, The Nature of Technological Knowledge: Extending Empirically
Informed Studies into What Engineers Know, Techne 6(3, Spring), 121.
De Vries, M. J.: 2003b, Interdisciplinarity and the Integration of Knowledge, in: , M. J. De
Vries, B. Bergvall-Kareborn & S. Strijbos (eds.), Interdisciplinarity and the Integration of
Knowledge. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Working Conference of CPTS, CPTS,
Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
De Vries, M. J.: 2003c, The Nature of Technological Knowledge: Philosophical Reections and
Educational Consequences, PATT (Glasgow) Conference Proceedings, 8386, 2124. July
2003.
Dorst, K.: 1997, Describing design, Technische Universiteit Delft (Proefskrif), Delft.
International Technology Education Association (ITEA): 1997, Standards for Technology
education. First Draft, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, VA.
Jakovljevic, M.: 2002, An Instructional Model for Teaching Complex Thinking through Web
Page Design, Rand Afrikaans University (D.Ed. thesis), Johannesburg.
Johnsey, R.: 1995, The Design Process Does it Exist? A Critical Review of Published Models
for the Design Process in England and Wales, International Journal of Technology and
Design Education 5(3), 199217.
Johnson, S. D.: 1997, Learning Technological Concepts and Developing Intellectual Skills,
International Journal of Technology and Design Education 7(12), 161180.
Kroes, P. & Meijers, A.: 2000, Introduction: A Discipline in Search of its Identity.: 2000, in
P. Kroes, A. Meijers & C. Mitcham (eds.), The Empirical Turn in the Philosophy of
Technology, Elserivier Science Ltd., Amsterdam.
McCormick, R.: 1997, Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge, International Journal of
Technology and Design Education 7(12), 141159.
McCormick, R. & Davidson, M.: 1996, Problem Solving and the Tyranny of Product
Outcomes, Journal of Design and Technology Education 1(3), 230241.
McCormick, R., Murphy, P. & Hennessy, S.: 1994, Problem-solving Processes in Technology
Education. A pilot study, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 4, 534.

IMPLICATIONS OF PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY

141

Meijers, A.: 2000, The Relational Ontology of Technical Artefacts.: 2000, in P. Kroes,
A. Meijers & C. Mitcham (eds.), The Empirical Turn in the Philosophy of Technology,
Elsevier Science Ltd., Amsterdam.
Mitcham, C.: 1994, Thinking Through Technology, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Moreland, J. & Jones, A.: 2000, Emerging Assessment Practices in an Emergent curriculum:
Implications for Technology, International Journal of Technology and Design Education
10(3), 283305.
Powers, T. P.: 1993, Heisenbergs War. The Secret History of the German Bomb, Penguin Books,
London.
Reddy, K., Ankiewicz, P. J., De Swardt, A. E. & Gross, E.: 2003, The Essential Features of
Technology Education: A Conceptual Framework for the Development of OBE (Outcomes
Based Education)-related Programmes in Technology Education, International Journal of
Technology and Design Education 13(1), 2745.
Ropohl, G.: 1997, Knowledge Types in Technology, International Journal of Technology and
Design Education 7, 6572.
Ryle, G.: 1949, The Concept of Mind, Penguin Books, Hammondsworth.
Sharpe, D. B.: 1996, Out with the Old, in with the New, Journal of Design and Technology
Education 1(1), 2436.
Smit, W. A. & Van Oost, E. C. J.: 1999, De wederzijdse benvloeding van technologie en
maatschappij, Uitgeverij Coutinho, Bussum.
Van der Walt, J. L., Dekker, E. I. & Van der Walt, I. D.: 1985, Die opvoedingsgebeure: n
Skrifmatige perspektief, Instituut vir Reformatoriese Studies, Potchefstroom.
Van Niekerk, E.: 2003, n Prosesgebaseerde assesseringsraamwerk vir tegnologie-onderwys: n
Gevalstudie, Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit (M.Ed. mini-dissertation), Johannesburg.
Van Riessen, H.: 1949, Filosoe en techniek, (Thesis), JH Kok, Kampen.
Vincenti, W. G.: 1990, What Engineers Know and How They Know it (Johns Hopkins Paperback
Edition), The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi